October 2018

Bromley

Enviro Ctte on 10 Oct, looked at the draft LIP3 submission with a committee paper and draft submission. It’s quaintly old fashioned – with its references to the London Cycle Network, and lacks the evidence-rich detail and detailed proposals that are included in several inner London boroughs’ drafts. Local Tories have campaigned against 20mph zones, and lukewarm support is reflected in draft LIP. (For my notes: decision papers on the Crofton Road quietway scheme, and local newspaper’s report of residents’ opposition).

Executive on 17 Oct includes papers to acquire small parcels of land to support quietway cycle and pedestrian space near Orpington Station.

City of London

Plng & Transport Sub-Ctte on 9 Oct: has the draft local plan (10mb pdf), and the draft transport strategy (3mb pdf). The latter has generated lots of excitement, as the city proposes to characterise each road by purpose, then restrict traffic accordingly. Implication is a heavy nudge towards public and sustainable transport modes, with motorised traffic being dramatically tamed.

Hampstead Heath ctte on 29 Oct, has the management plans through 2028. There are no proposals for greater cycle access to the heath, including to the pools. More positively, the super’s report says the City’s private heath constabulary hasn’t found anyone to prosecute recently.

Cabinet on 15 October: Item 5 focuses on the growth zone programme, and item 6 on the draft LIP3 submission, both with appendices. Growth plan papers look, to me, a bit light on transport detail, but this does get a good slug of budget. The draft LIP submission has frightening, and inter-related, stats about high obesity in kids and adults, low levels of physical activity, high car dependency (including trips inside the borough), and low stats for walking & cycling.

Summary of responses to the CWIS Safety Review – all the usual good responses (segregated cycle tracks, good design, better driving standards, effective sanctions in the courts etc.) Will be interesting to see what the government actually does.

Cabinet on 5 November, has draft LIP3 to go to local consultation later this autumn (ctte paper, main 5mb pdf LIP document). Repeats the statement from September’s draft about cycle superhighways not being for fast commuters, then asks TfL to consider re-routing CS9 via the A4, which only benefit fast commuters. This draft also includes a new CSH – numbered CS23 – to link Willesden, Shepherd’s Bush, Hammersmith & Fulham. First reference I’ve seen to CS23, and it doesn’t seem to be a confusion with a quietway scheme.

Highways England

17 Oct, published its first “Cycling and Accessibility Annual Progress Report” (DfT page and pdf link). It includes 7 case studies – 6 are shared-use pavements, the 7th is a 3m wide pavement with “potential for conversion to a cycleway”. Earlier this summer, HE published plans to widen the A23 south of Croydon through Hooley – this too has a shared-use pavement where “cyclists will need to dismount”. Highways England isn’t getting this stuff, is it?

Cabinet on 15 Oct with papers on its transport strategy and draft LIP plan (paper, strategy, LIP document). These cite a rich evidence base to underpin the proposals and demonstrate underpinning to the Mayor’s/TfL’s transport strategy. Best evidenced LIP documents that I’ve seen from the boroughs I’m interested in. Strategy and LIP go to consultation this autumn.

London Assembly

Transport Ctte on 9 Oct: invited 8 representatives of the taxi and PHV trade (?), plus the annual bid from London Travelwatch for money.

Budget ctte on 17 Oct, has a Q1 performance report from TfL, with lots of operational stats in addition to financial performance. Repeats the same calendar Q1 cycling stats given to the TfL Board in July – that Jan-March cycling numbers were about 460k km each day, but dented by the snow in March.

Cabinet on 13 October, has the August finance report, which shows it spent another £1k on “cycle route improvements” (PDF page 35), for a total this FY of £174k. There’s no detail to explain what, but the budget profile suggests the council should have spent £245k. Separately, various other budgets have been raided to create £150k for a “school keep clear” project but, as usual in Merton, there’s absolutely no info on what this is other than a budget line title.

Full council on 17 Oct: Q&A includes answer from council leader regarding the 20% increase in pedestrian casualties in 2017 (question 8). Cllr Govindia uses it as a point scoring exercise against TfL (and thus the Mayor). Part of the increase is that the way STATS19 data is categorised has changed, many of the previously-tagged minor injuries are now categorised as serious. TfL is doing some work to retag one or two previous years to see what the overall +/- effect is.

Referendum (yes!) on 18 October in Knightsbridge to approve the “Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037”. Contains all the usual virtuous promises about supporting active travel. Interestingly, the plan describes Exhibition Road as a “main route” for traffic through the area (the north end of the road is in Westminster), but Kensington & Chelsea rebuilt the southern end as low-traffic shared-use space a few years ago, and designated it as a quietway route. The two councils’ positions cannot be concurrently true.

September 2018

Tudor Street/ New Bridge Street/ Bridewell Place – which is the route of the North/South CS6 segregated cycle route just north of Blackfriars Bridge. Ongoing story where the City and TfL want to shift the entrance/exit from the courts area with New Bridge St. However, there’s lots of proposed building works in the area (e.g. new courts complex) and Cadent want to do gas main replacement works in both the Embankment *and* Tudor Street in the next 2-3 years. Looks like it will be several years before any changes are made

One new bit of info in the Tudor Street paper is that the City and TfL are looking at changes south of the courts area – Temple Avenue or Carmelite Avenue – to give motorised vehicles access to the Embankment. This may impact CS3.

Collection of papers on the Beech Street proposal (item 5)– largely the tunnel under the Barbican – with analysis of motorised traffic etc. Project aim is to reduce volumes of motorised traffic, improve air quality …

Dockless bikes – updated papers because committee members asked at previous meeting whether bikes can be considered obstructions or illegal trading, despite officers saying they had received next to no complaints. Seems a London-wide byelaw is being considered to manage the dockless bike schemes with the 32 boroughs acting together.

Cabinet & officer decision, 10 Sept: to support TfL’s revised plans for the Fiveways junction (PDF). The new plans retain much of the existing bridge, to reduce costs, and provide north/south cycle tracks through much of the scheme. However, (IMO) the junctions are poor for people cycling and walking. The A23’s cycle tracks will be funded by Croydon Council reassigning £5m from its growth zone programme (impact on other projects unstated).

Draft LIP strategy for 3 years, 2019/20 to 2021/22 with committee paper, a heavy LIP document, and equality act assessment. The council’s position on cycle route CS9 appears muddled to me: it states that cycle superhighways are not intended for fast, long-distance cyclists then asks TfL to reroute CS9 along the A4 instead of King Street. Apparently, mixing cyclists with pedestrians in King St will compromise healthy streets objectives, but today’s mix of pedestrians with motorised vehicles is OK.

Cabinet on 17 Sept, focuses on budgets and has the outturn papers for June and July. Side by side, the papers say that £90,000 was spent in July on ‘cycle network improvements’ on top of £81,000 during April to June. No information on where and on what this money was spent. The July paper announces £150,000 from TfL for ‘Figges Marsh bus priority scheme’ whereas previous references were to a Figges Marsh roundabout safety study. As usual, stuff just appears from no where in Merton Council’s papers.

Several papers resulting from a planning inspector’s review of the Hackbridge planning policies … seem to be lots of pedantic tweaks, (“insert ‘where appropriate’” …) which will probably create wiggle room for lazy developers.

Cycling stuff – with lots of tractor production statistics – start on PDF page 44 (page 18 of the Commissioner’s report). Indicates that 2nd consultation on the Rotherhithe – Canary Wharf crossing will be this autumn.

There’s a broader section on Active Travel starting on pdf page 124, with more walking & cycling stats, with some insight into work to entice the “rejectioners”.

Pdf page 142 reports that 2018/19Q1 (which is really Jan-March 2018) cycling volumes in the congestion charge zone were up 14.3%. The same stats were provided in July to the London Assembly.

Cllr Jon King’s title has changed from Community Services to “Strategic Planning & Transport”, so the scrutiny committee has changed its title too. I expect the committee’s agendas will continue to be dominated by strategic changes to car parking zones.

Transport Ctte on 18 Sept – split out from the old Communities Ctte: Nothing on the Priory Lane consultation, so that is kicked forward for at least another month.

Petition from residents in Trewint Street (where Quietway 4 crosses the Wandle bridge to join Summerley Street) asking for traffic calming as the 20mph speed limit is routinely ignored. (Update: councillors voted on party lines 5/4 to defer any action for 2 years).

Paper on Trinity Road/ Burntwood Lane junction, and problems with delayed traffic esp. buses. Early analysis looking at short/ medium/ long term options, the last of which include widening the junction with land taken from the common and sports ground (mitigation options include narrowing Trinity further north from 6 lanes to 5). Includes description of drivers entering/ exiting the Trinity / Magdalen Road junction as “rat runners” and “aggressive”. Magdalen is the route of Quietway Q4.

Westminster LCC spotted that council cabinet reviewed proposals for the Aldwych gyratory in July, which appear to show the south side designated for pedestrians only, and the north side given over to 2-way traffic. The low quality PDF appears to show ASL boxes but no other cycling infrastructure. Subsequently, Will Norman indicated that there are updated plans.